Formation Of A Criteria Base For Efficiency Assessment Of The Personnel Service

Approaches to efficiency assessment of personnel service performance

Nowadays there are a variety of approaches to efficiency assessment of personnel service performance.

Bilorus (2018) suggests to approach the issue of personnel strategy formation on the basis of the GE/McKinsey model, changing the coordinates of the matrix to the attractiveness of the state personnel policy and the competitiveness index of the personnel management system, correspondingly. The competitiveness index of the personnel management system is determined on the basis of evaluation of the effectiveness of the subsystems of motivation, selection, personnel assessment, level of workplace organization, state of the moral and psychological climate, etc. (Bilorus, 2018).

A number of authors, such as Saeed, Wall, Roberts, Riahi, & Bury (2017) and others consider the issue of assessing the effectiveness of the personnel management system taking into account the specifics of the activity of the object of research, its industry sector.

However, in these cases the authors pay attention to the issues of the personnel management system evaluation, while the evaluation of the personnel service effectiveness in these cases can be carried out indirectly, in the context of the effectiveness of personnel management.

Whereas Kibanov (Kibanov, Mitrofanova, & Esaulova, 2016) considers the following foreign approaches to assessing the personnel service efficiency (Figure 01 ).

See Full Size >

Internal reviews are carried out through surveys, interviews, questionnaires. As for expert review, surveys are conducted among the heads of structural divisions in order to reveal their opinion on the effectiveness of the personnel service. The HR-benchmarking method is a comparative assessment of the key performance indicators of the enterprise’s personnel service and its competitors. Human resources analysis implies not necessarily an assessment of the personnel service activity, but an assessment of the labor potential as a whole, evaluation of the value and contribution of all employees in the activities of the organization.

Personnel audit is a method of integrated assessment of the personnel service, which is usually conducted by external auditors. Key performance indicators (KPIs) are based on the identification of key indicators of enterprise personnel management, which are linked to the organizational goals and objectives. Management by objectives is about setting goals and evaluating their achievement. HR service as a profit center. The cost of services can be determined based on market prices. The method of ROI is the evaluation of personnel service projects of the enterprise by comparing the benefits that these projects give to the enterprise with the costs of their implementation.

Therefore, it can be noted that the choice of approaches to assessing the effectiveness of the personnel service is determined by a set of specific management tasks, and also depends on the resources the organization has.

Practical aspects of efficiency assessment of personnel service performance

In our opinion, to assess the efficiency of the personnel service of an enterprise, the method of expert estimates of performance indicators is preferable, since this method can be implemented on its own, that is, without the involvement of third-party experts, which ensures its availability and low cost.

At the first stage the expert method implies the construction of a hierarchical system of performance indicators (table 01 ).

The presented system of indicators consists of three levels. On the first level of the hierarchical system stands the comprehensive indicator of the personnel service efficiency. The second level is the indicators that assess the integrated functional groups of the personnel management system. And the third level consists of indicators that describe functional subsystems.

The second stage is the formation of an expert group. It is advisable to include in the expert group employees from among the managers and specialists of the personnel service and other functional divisions of the organization.

At the third stage, it is necessary to familiarize the members of the expert group with the task of evaluating the effectiveness of the personnel service, to present a system of indicators for evaluation.

The fourth stage is related to the determination of the coefficient of the expert’s confidence. The maximum value of the coefficient is one.

The fifth stage is where the experts determine the actual values of the indicators of the third level of the model. For this each expert gives an assessment of the state of the functional subsystem on a ten-point scale. Then the generalized expert opinion is calculated by the formula (1):

${\mathrm{Р}}_{\mathrm{3}\mathrm{э}}=\frac{\mathrm{1}}{n}\left(\underset{j=\mathrm{1}}{\overset{n}{\sum }}{Q}_{ij\mathrm{э}}\times K_j\right),$(1)

where P _3э is weighted average group value of the i-indicator of the third level, in points,

K _j is the coefficient of competence of the j-expert,

Q _ijэ is the value assigned by the j-expert to the indicator on a ten-point scale, in points.

Herewith, the assessment of compliance with the appropriate level of a specific parameter was carried out as follows:

10 points – complete compliance,

8-9 points – acceptable compliance,

6-7 points – admissible compliance,

3-5 points – partial compliance,

Less than 3 points – complete discrepancy

The expert assessment of the third level indicators, reflecting the state of the subsystems of the personnel management system, is presented in table 02 .

As follows from the data of Table 2 , the weighted average score of the personnel planning and marketing subsystem is 6.8 points. The highest score (9 points) was given by experts 1, 3 and 4. At the same time, expert 6 rated the work of this subsystem only at 7 points. The weighted average score of personnel recruitment and accounting subsystem is 6.4 points. The greatest degree of dissatisfaction in relation to the quality of the functions performed in the framework of the personnel recruitment and accounting subsystem, was shown by Expert 2 (6 points).

In a similar way, experts evaluate all individual performance indicators shown in table 01 .

Thus, the analysis of expert opinions allows us to characterize the functioning of all subsystems of the personnel management system. We see that the opinions of experts differ, which is a consequence of the subjectivity of judgments. Differences in opinions are due to position, different work experience, education and other personal characteristics. However, in aggregate, these opinions provide an opportunity for a fairly objective assessment of the personnel management system.

A comparative assessment of the enterprise personnel management subsystems is reflected in the diagram (Figure 02 ).

See Full Size >

The outer circle of the diagram represents the highest possible assessment value for each subsystem, which, taking into account the coefficients of experts, is 8.2 points. The diagram shows that the subsystem of management organizational structure development (7.2 points), the technical support subsystem (6.9 points) and the personnel planning and marketing subsystem (6.8 points) received the highest marks. At the same time, according to experts, the subsystem of personnel motivation (5.5 points), the staff development subsystem (5.6 points) and the subsystem of working conditions (5.9 points) are the weakest.

Next the value of group indicators for functional subsystems should be calculated (6):

${\mathrm{Р}}_{\mathrm{2}\mathrm{э}}=\frac{\mathrm{1}}{m}\underset{i=\mathrm{1}}{\overset{m}{\sum }}{P}_{\mathrm{3}\mathrm{э}},$(2)

where Р _2э is the arithmetic average group value of the absolute expert i-indicator of the second level of the model, in points,

m is the number of indicators of the third level of the model, which are a part of the second group.

Let us calculate the average group value for each functional subsystem:

I. Personnel recruitment: Р2э = (6.8+6.4)/2 = 6.6 points,

II. Use of personnel: Р2э = (6.4+5.9+5.5+6.1)/4 = 5.98 points,

III. Staff development: Р2э = (5.6+7.2)/2 = 6.4 points,

IV. Provision of personnel management system Р _2э = (6.0+6.9+6.3)/3 = 6.4 points,

Thus, the scores of functional subsystems are approximately at the same level due to the fact that they contain particular performance indicators with relatively high and low values, and as a result of calculating the arithmetic average, the averaging of estimates within functional groups has occurred.

Let us calculate the value of a comprehensive performance indicator according to the following formula (7):

${\mathrm{Р}}_{\mathrm{1}\mathrm{э}}=\frac{\mathrm{1}}{m}\underset{i=\mathrm{1}}{\overset{m}{\sum }}{P}_{\mathrm{2}\mathrm{э}},$(3)

where Р _1э is the arithmetic average group value of the complex index of the first level of the model, in points,

m is the number of indicators of the second level of the model

Р _1э = (6.6+5.98+6.4+6.4)/4 = 6.3 points.

Consequently, it can be concluded that the value of the integrated performance indicator of the enterprise’s personnel service, which equals to 6.3 points, is less than the maximum possible value (8.2 points) by 1.9 points. That is, the efficiency of the personnel service is at an acceptable level, but individual areas of work need to be improved.

Improving the assessment of personnel service’s work

Human capital is the most important economic resource of a modern enterprise in all areas of its activity. The role of personnel service in the formation of human capital in most modern enterprises comes down to documentary support of work with personnel and staffing activities. It is necessary to engage the capabilities of the personnel service to a fuller extent, but for this it is necessary, first of all, to provide the enterprise's personnel service with appropriately qualified staff with the required knowledge and skills.

Assessment of the efficiency of the personnel service performance on the basis of a comprehensive indicator of the effectiveness of the personnel management system does not provide an assessment of an important component of the personnel service's work – that is of its employees. For an objective assessment of personnel service’s staff, it is advisable to use professional standards. The professional standard “Personnel Management Specialist” was approved by the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection of the Russian Federation on October 6, 2015 Order No. 691n (Professional standard Personnel Management Specialist, 2015).

The proposed method makes it possible to evaluate the personnel service’s staff taking into account the content of labor functions stipulated by professional standards. The estimated coefficient of a specialist’s activity is calculated on the basis of the significance of generalized labor functions, the significance of labor functions and the degree of their fulfillment. The coefficients of significance and gradation of the coefficients of the level achieved should be determined by the management of the analyzed enterprise, taking into account the existing priorities in the development of the enterprise.

In the professional standard there are eight generalized labor functions:

A - documentary support of work with the staff;

B - staffing activity;

C - staff assessment and certification activities;

D - staff development activity;

E - work organization and labor remuneration activity;

F - activity of corporate social policy organization;

G - operational management of personnel and department of the organization;

H - strategic management of the enterprise’s staff.

Assessment of personnel service's staff should be carried out on the basis of the data contained in the professional standard on generalized labor functions, labor functions, labor actions, skills and knowledge. During the assessment it is necessary to determine the significance of the considered evaluation parameters in relation to a specific position, since the standard imposes requirements on the labor functionality of various positions in the field of personnel management. It is obvious that employees and managers of various services cannot possess all this set of qualities, therefore it is necessary to differentiate the requirements depending on the department and position.

In order to assess the personnel service staff, it is advisable to use the formula for calculating the coefficient of quality of activity (4):

$K_{\mathrm{э}}=\underset{i=\mathrm{1}}{\overset{k}{\sum }}{d}_{k_i}\underset{j=\mathrm{1}}{\overset{m}{\sum }}{d}_{Fj}{K}_{Fj},$(4)

k is the number of labor functions;

d _Ki is the value (fraction) of the i-criteria (labor function);

d _Fj is the value (fraction) of the j-labor function;

K _Fj is the coefficient of the degree of fulfillment of the j-labor function.

When assessing the degree of fulfillment of the labor action, it is necessary to determine the scale of assessment (in fractions of one):

1 – high degree of fulfillment;

0.7 – medium degree of fulfillment;

0.3 – middling degree of fulfillment;

0.1 – inadequate degree of fulfillment.

It is advisable to carry out the assessment within the framework of a specific generalized labor function, since it is within the framework of generalized labor functions that the standard determines the requirements for the level of qualifications, position, level of education and training, as well as labor knowledge, skills and actions.

Assessment of the personnel service's staff work quality

Let us consider the use of methods for assessing the quality of the personnel services work on the basis of the professional standard on the example of an employee of the department of documentation support - document specialist.

Analyzing the data of the professional standard "Personnel Management Specialist" one can note that the specialist occupying this position should have the fifth level of qualification, and that the requirements for his or her knowledge, skills and actions are described in the framework of the generalized work function A - "Documentary support for working with personnel." Document specialist must have secondary vocational education.

Within the framework of this generalized labor function three labor functions are distinguished, and for each of them there are labor actions, skills and knowledge. Within the confines of this methodology we are interested in labor activity, although the assessment of knowledge and skills must also be present, but for this, in our opinion, a separate study is necessary.

Table 03 presents the necessary data for the subsequent evaluation of the department’s employees (we denote them contingently as Document specialist A and Document specialist B). The assessment of the significance of labor functions and labor actions is carried out on the basis of expert opinions of the leader and specialists of the personnel service who are competent in this field (table 03 ).

The assessment of the significance of labor functions for this position varies. Such labor functions as “Maintaining organizational and administrative documentation on personnel” and “Maintaining records on personnel accounting and staff movement” have a weighting factor equal to 0.4 units, while the labor function “Administration of processes and document flow for personnel accounting and staff movement, submission of personnel documents to state bodies" - only 0.2 units. The labor actions considered within the framework of these labor functions also have a different assessment of significance.

The assessment of the degree of fulfillment of labor actions given by the experts of the documentation specialists’ activities revealed that the document specialist A has shown much higher level of performance of official duties, since in almost all the compared indicators his or her score is higher than that of his or her colleague.

Next one needs to calculate the quality factors of work for these employees. In order to do that let us construct an auxiliary table 04 .

On the basis of the data of table 4 , let us calculate the quality factors of the document specialists’ work:

K_Fj(А) = 0.4*0.94 + 0.4*0.81 + 0.2*0.85 = 0.87 points,

K_Fj(А) = 0.4*0.7 + 0.4*0.68 + 0.2*0.38 = 0.63 points.

Thus, the calculated data affirm the high level of quality of document specialist A’s work and the average (and even lower than average) level of quality of work of document specialist B.

In the future the results of the personnel department's staff assessment may be useful for developing a training plan (identifying areas of study), developing programs for motivation and stimulation of the employees' work. That is, an objective basis will be created for planning out the work with the personnel services staff and improving the quality of their performance.

Approaches to efficiency assessment of personnel service performance.

Practical aspects of efficiency assessment of personnel service performance.

Improving the assessment of personnel service’s work.

Assessment of the personnel service's staff work quality.